For months, Republican presidential candidates have been eager, if not desperate, to accuse President Obama of waging a "war on religion." Rick Perry got the ball rolling quite a while ago, but his more successful rivals have picked up on the same line.
The problem for the GOP candidates has been substantive: they knew they wanted to accuse Obama of being hostile towards faith communities, but they couldn't explain why. Republicans saw value in the attack -- the drive to paint the president as "The Other" has been a constant for four years -- but they had absolutely no idea how to bolster the smear.
This week, Mitt Romney seems to have settled on a policy to match the attack: the Obama administration's decision to require coverage of contraception as preventive care under the Affordable Care Act is, according to the former governor, an "attack on religious liberty."
Romney told voters in Colorado yesterday that "churches and the institutions they run" will "have to provide for their employees, free of charge, contraceptives, morning-after pills -- in other words abortive pills and the like -- at no cost."
As a substantive matter, Romney's lying. The administration's policy already exempts churches and other houses of worship and "doesn't require any individual or employer to violate a religious belief -- it simply ensures that their employees with different beliefs have the same access to birth control as all other women."
But as a matter of consistency, Romney has another problem: he's not only lying; he's also denouncing Obama for adopting a policy similar to one Romney used to support.
Mitt Romney accused President Obama this week of ordering "religious organizations to violate their conscience,'' referring to a White House decision that requires all health plans - even those covering employees at Catholic hospitals, charities, and colleges - to provide free birth control. But a review of Romney's tenure as Massachusetts governor shows that he once took a similar step.
Oops.
While Romney was on the attack yesterday, condemning the idea of requiring religious institutions to provide emergency contraception, as governor, a previous iteration of Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney's criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.
"The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,'' said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. "President Obama's plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I'm not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.'' [...]
"Governor Romney afterwards lamented that and campaigned around the country as someone in favor of religious freedom and traditional morality,'' Doyle said. "He is very consistent at working both sides of the street on the same issue at the same time. His record on this issue has been one of very cynical and tactical manipulation.''
It's the latest in a series of examples of Romney 2.0 interfering with the ambitions of Romney 5.0.
Leave a Comment:
Not sure anyone cares, given the comments above, but has anyone actually confirmed that Romney has been inconsistent on this issue? His campaign says no and that he vetoed the bill in question as governor. Fine to knock him if you disagree with his stance (whatever it actually is), but it would be nice if bloggers confirmed facts before they posted on them. Guess that might interfere with the stream of consciousness nastiness that is required in the medium. Thanks.
You really should have just read the article instead of being cynical about it. TRMS always provides it's readers w/ the information they are reporting on. I don't mean to be rude, but it's kind've a jerk move to take a swing at other people for being lazy when the information was provided to your question from the beginning and you didn't bother to click on the link. Here is again in case you change your mind:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/03/mitt_romney_caught_in_inconsistency_in_blast_at_barack_obama_for_forcing_catholic_institutions_to_provide_insured_birth_control/
O.k., fair point that I should have clicked the link. Of course, I am not a blogger and not in the business of providing information and opinions to the public. Explain to me how "he's not only lying; he's also denouncing Obama for adopting a policy similar to one Romney used to support" is not a misleading statement in light of the actual facts in Massachusetts? I don't recall seeing something in the blog about the facts in MA being complicated and encouraging me to click on the link. What I got instead was misleading analysis presented as fact, albeit with a freaking link to further information tagged onto it? That is, with all due respect, at best CYOA, because Ms. Maddow knows full well that most people will read her blog and do no more (like me). A balanced person would have added the explicit caveat that Romney vetoed the legislation in Massachusetts. Of course, there is also the possibility that Ms. Maddow neither knows nor cares what the actual facts in Massachusetts were, link or no link. If that is not the case, then I apologize for the "lazy" accusation, but find the intentional mischaracterization of the MA facts even more off-putting. There is plenty to go after Romney on when it comes to actual substance, but this story is B.S., and flippant B.S. at that.
Well no- a reasonable person assumes that if the links are provided you will read the links provided. You can't attack an organization based on their assumptions about the public, you can only state that in your particular instance you didn't do the same. I rarely ever read these blog posts w/o clicking the information they provide and they provide it w/ that intention. Although I will meet you half way and say that for someone who is new I understand that.
The bill in question had to do w/ rape victims and whether or not Catholic hospitals had to provide contraceptive to those victims. The law went over Romney's head (which he did veto). When asked about it he stated publicly that he does agree personally w/ the idea that there be an exception. It's this statement that Maddowblog is referring to when stating that he's contradicting himself. I will meet you half way and say that omitting that position is dishonest spin and certainly this means calling him a liar is a stretch.
Also Maddow does not write the blog posts you are reading (which it also states at the top of the post)
You need to ask the Catholic church this question: Are you no longer allowing special dispensation for birth control pills as a doctor recommends for issues other than birth control? My mother applied for and received this years ago as the doctor was fighting other women's health issues that the birth control pills helped. So now if she went through all the paper she would have to get the pills without coverage? This isn't about the church. It is about women's health.
This important issue along with the abortion issue and gay marriage issue has been reduced to a political circle jerk. The politicians don't care one way or the other who uses or gets contraception (except radicals like Santorum). Matters like these that are near and dear to our hearts are being used like medieval jousting swords. These ass hole politicians need to knock each other off their high horses and get back to basics. God, I love my analogies!
Are the GOP candidates going to defend Sharia Law, when it conflicts with Federal law? They can't have it both ways. If Catholic Canon Law supercedes Fed. Law, why not Sharia?
A violation of Amendment I, is a violation.
Some in the Catholic Church now insist that the government enforce their no contraception belief, which half the Church doesn't follow anyway. Church beliefs possess value only to the extent of example, over a long period of time. Hospitals are corporations; and, therefore people who must abide by the law of suffer penalty. Church's are not corporations but tax exempt. If the church wants to exercise it's belief system on hospitals they need to forgo their tax exemption and become corporations. As corporations those Catholic Hospital corporations can not discriminate against those who don't share their belief system unless they want to become a private club. The church needs to get their child predator priests under control.
Just a small point: not all corporations are for profit. I think many non-profit corporations are tax exempt, even if they are not churches.
I agree that the tax status of the churches is called into question when they refuse to follow the laws either of the states or the federal government.
If Catholic Hospitals don't want to abide by the rules, all they have to do is refuse all federal money...nothing to it.